From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28473 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2002 17:11:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28466 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 17:11:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out1.apple.com) (17.254.0.52) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 17:11:43 -0000 Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA6HBhw05461 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:11:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:11:39 -0800 Received: from apple.com (vpn-scv-x0-143.apple.com [17.219.192.143]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA6HBci25809; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:11:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 09:11:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [basic-improvements] try/finally support for c/c++ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546) Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , Richard Henderson , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, jakub@redhat.com, jason@redhat.com, drepper@redhat.com To: Aldy Hernandez From: Matt Austern In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00288.txt.bz2 On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 09:08 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > I'mna let y'all discuss this. I was just the hacker, nothing else. > Ulrich Drepper and rth asked me to work on this for Uli's libpthread > rewrite for glibc. (Not that this is a valid argument, but a few > other compilers have try/finally for C :-)). > > Meanwhile I'll keep iteracting with Joseph Myers, rth, etc over > documentation changes ;-). I hope the documentation will include a rationale, not just for exceptions in general, but for the specific design decisions you made. There are an awful lot of ways in which a language can support exceptions, after all: why this way instead of one of all the others? I'm not necessarily opposed to this change, but mostly I want us to recognize that what we're doing is language design and that it ought to be treated as such. It's a much more drastic thing than just adding a new optimization pass. --Matt